Adventure Game Studio

This is a sort of sister post to the current tropes vs women thread and I'm interested in what the feminist ladies have to say because I seem to disagree with all the feminist angles I've read.

PZ Myers, a popular atheist and feminist blogger, has just accused Michael Shermer of multiple accounts of rape: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/08/08/what-do-you-do-when-someone-pulls-the-pin-and-hands-you-a-grenade

As far as I can see this is just straight out libel and slander. Rape is a serious business and you can't throw around those accusations without some evidence.
PZ doesn't seem to provide any evidence except that someone told him so but even if he did have evidence I still don't think it would appropriate to publish such information.

Feminists argue that, by publishing the material, PZ is possibly protecting women from future assaults and that it's better that Shermer be libelled than another woman be raped.
They also argue that evidence collection for such a crime is difficult and requires swift action and that, even with evidence, such a crime is difficult to prove.

So is our justice system necessarily biased against victims in this case due to the doctrine of innocent until proven guilty?
If so, then should women use other tactics such as potential libel and slander in order to protect themselves and others?

I'm not quite sure this is clear libel or slander, mainly because there doesn't seem to be any malice or intent to harm on PZ Myers' part, and he seems to sincerely believe it is true based on multiple eyewitness/victim accounts. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation).

That being said, I'm not sure it's an appropriate thing to publish either, especially when none of the witness' names are used so no one can be held accountable for what is said. (Although if the claims are true, it is very sad indeed that there were no repercussions.) I feel like this is something better handled by the police than a vigilante blogger, but maybe I'm not understanding something other feminists are.

I might have replied here, but Calin was clearly only interested in what female feminists thought about it...

Are you accusing me of discrimination against owners of penises and pickup trucks, Mr Andail?

I was specifically interested in what ladies thought but I am interested in all comment and criticism.

Andail I would be interested to hear your opinion.

Calin, from that article alone it is hard to form an opinion. I can understand the victims and witnesses desire to stay anonymous, but I can see why people would find it hard to take an expose seriously when there are no names, dates, etc given.

I was sad to hear the victim reported the crime to the conference organization but no action was taken. Ideally she should have gone to the police, but rape is a really traumatic crime and it can be difficult to muster the courage to go through the police reports when you are going through the emotions of having been assaulted. Not to mention the victim blaming culture we live in where if a woman is raped she is subject to an very public debate about whether or she was "asking for it". What was she wearing? Did she accept drinks from him? Why didn't she know self defence or have a rape alarm? And as we know from the news there have been backlogs of dna testing kits from reported rapes across the USA, over 2000 in some states that have just been left. Something like only 22% of rape reports lead to an arrest, which makes it unsurprising to me that a huge amount of rapes end up unreported. The rape victim is put in a position of feeling violated, traumatised and a whole other roster of emotions, and then has to choose between subjecting themselves to an intrusive exam, interview and possible public shaming that might amount to nothing, or living with the fear their attacker may hurt someone else even worse later.

When I look at it that way I can understand why a person might think outing someone on a blog will help prevent further crimes or maybe get some kind of justice. The system often fails minorities in a he said, she said case, especially in assault without dna proof or witnesses because there is always reasonable doubt. I'm not saying that the justice system is always wrong, or vigilante justice is the solution, but I am saying I can understand why someone might feel it is the only way they can do this.

I don't know the work of PZ Myers, so I can't say whether or not he is a thoughtful or respectable blogger, but lets take it on personal merit for him alone as we know no other specifics of the case. Is he well respected? Is he considered a reasoned, thoughtful blogger? If so it seems it would be unlikely for him to post something so risky that could end so badly. If he's a cheap shock jock then of course it would make it harder to see it as a reliable post.

My question to you Calin, I suppose is how does one gather rape evidence if they do not go immediately to the police? The absence of evidence does not mean the absence of a crime. If it's two people alone in the room there will be no witnesses. If you see a man escorting a drunk woman to a room, you probably assume a caring situation like a husband and wife, friends, co workers, and that they will not harm the person when the door is closed. It would hardly be a memorable sight.

It's easy to report a mugging because no one is likely to judge you for getting mugged. No one will say "You were asking for it holding the handbag walking down the street, right where the mugger could see it! He couldn't help himself!" No one would necessarily expect there to be DNA evidence either. You are reporting it, you claim your stuff is stolen (how do we know you even had an iPad or faberge egg in your bag?) it gets written down and investigated and people don't debate it happened to you, even without witnesses.


But in a rape case, as I have stated it's not as a black and white. It sounds like the victim was either drunk to the point of non consent, or drugged. In either scenario she should not have been raped, but there will be people who say "Well its her fault for drinking." The organizers of the conference took no action which would probably have added to her confusion and guilt about going to the police. Also if the victim has a hazy memory from the drugging/drink she may try to convince herself it didn't happen and hesitate to report it.

The answer to your question in my opinion is a cultural shift. We need to stop blaming victims and stop minimising assault. We need to be teaching our kids about this stuff and the wider media should be taking this on board too. They need to reconsider portrayals of female sexuality because the madonna/whore dichotomy makes things confusing for both genders. Showing consent as sexy would be helpful.

Our justice system needs to be taking this stuff seriously too and making it easier for victims to report these sorts of crimes by educating the public and making victims feel safe, instead of persecuted. They also need to show they will actually do something with the reports and kits, as they are now just getting through some of those backlogged ones after increasing pressure.

I don't think vigilante justice is a safe or practical solution, but I understand why it has been chosen. Hopefully instances like this will encourage people to look at the justice system as a whole and why women are taking this sort of thing to the public forum for help.

This sums it up quite good:

(http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/files/2013/08/Harassment.jpg)

I'm a little surprised by the response here actually.

While I appreciate that the situation is not perfect surely the importance of our basic tenets of justice trumps all other concerns?

Innocent until proven guilty, the chance to face our accusers, a fair trial.

Who here is disagreeing with that? No one has said he's not entitled to a fair trial or even that he is guilty. But charges haven't officially been brought against him. You asked what we thought of vigilante justice, and I explained why I understood that approach. The deck is stacked in Shermer's favour in all honesty. I doubt he will face charges, doubt he will be convicted and I'm sure his accuser will be written off as a hateful crazy, or scorned ex partner. If true he may adjust his behaviour, if not he'll prove them wrong by continuing to not be an asshole.

If he get's charged he will have his day in court, but more than likely this will fizzle out and everyone will just forget it and continue to support him. Rape allegations have hardly fettered the careers of successful men like Roman Polanski, or Kobe Bryant.

It's funny how rape threats, death threats from anonymous internet users is something Anita Sarkeesian is expected to suck it up, ignore and get over, so why can't Shermer? It's just an anonymous accusation. If no one goes to the police he can just say she was lying. He needs to get a thicker skin! /sarcasm.

I think Myinah hit the nail on the head with the issue here from the victim's side: it's not easy to accuse someone of rape (http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/apr/13/rape-sexual-assault-frances-andrade-court) if you are the victim. I've dated someone who was raped, and the way she was handled afterwards (was not believed and her parents actively stopped her from bringing the issue further) did leave deep mental scars - I cannot imagine that pain then being brought up again in the courtroom all over again. It's very possible the victim just needed to tell someone, maybe even bring a small amount of justice in a less painful way than going to the authorities.

That being said, the article does suspiciously look like PZ Myers has a definite agenda here which is beyond just warning others. For one, he talks bout his own role, and 'sacrifice', far too much...it's too classically 'look at what I'm doing' and not 'this is reported to have happened'.

Be that as it may, I still think it is just as serious to dismiss a rape claim than it is to accuse someone of rape. What this whole debacle shows is that there definitely needs to be a re-think in the way rape cases are handled (as the article above suggests) - although I don't know the answer as to what the right way would be.

Calin:
There have of course been cases of disturbed individuals who have made accusations of rape that turned out to not be true. But given the severity of the crime, and given how difficult it is to report having been raped, I'd say that the chances of any rape accusation being true are overwhelmingly greater.

Just imagine for a second the accuser is a person you like and respect, and the accused is somebody you have never heard of. Wouldn't you immediately change your personal assessment to "guilty until proven innocent"? (That's not to say the law should handle it the same way.)

It is very unfortunate that a rape accusation later proven to be fake still has enormous repercussions, because otherwise people wouldn't side with Shermer as much as they do.

The following is highly subjective, I know, but still: I just can't imagine PZ Myers publishing something as severe as this on a whim. He's not some mostly unknown blogger oblivious about potential legal consequences. I have read a comment that claimed the way he did publish it was to evade libel laws, but even if that's true, I can't blame him. Still, I'm convinced he wouldn't have done this if he weren't 100% sure that the accusations are true.

The key point here I guess is that many people on the side of Shermer simply can't imagine him doing something that's so obviously wrong. And judging from some comments I've read, many also seem to think that he in fact didn't, even if the accusations are true, because what happened isn't rape, according to them.
One commenter made the point that it's not like he dropped 10 Rohypnol in her drink and dragged her off to his room.
Let's not forget that enablers like that are the people who make rapists continue what they do, and allow them to do so unscathed.

(On a side note: I find the use of the word rape in the English language highly problematic. The spectrum of what constitutes rape, ranging from a 18 and 17 y/o having consensual sex, over what Shermer allegedly did, to brutally violating somebody who is struggling and screaming, is much too broad.)

Edit: Just found this post (http://atheistforums.com/viewtopic.php?f=25=1982&start=15#p950908). Makes you want to vomit. The irony is that this guy wonders why rape victims don't report it right away. (roll)

I don't know anything about PZ Meyers, but the recent Hugo Schwyzer debacle has definitely made me a bit wary of men who tout themselves as feminist figureheads. Is he anything like that, or is he more of an atheism advocate who touches on feminism?

  I was friends with a girl who was raped while attending a college frat party.  She clearly said no and tried the push the guy off of her.  She did call the cops on the guy that night (could be early AM by that point), and I don't recall what happened to him in the short term, but bottom line is that she didn't attempt to have him prosecuted.  And I asked her why.  She met with an attorney who had warned her to make herself ready to be destroyed as a woman in court.  My friend had been drinking, though wasn't drunk, and she admitted having flirted with the guy earlier in the evening.  The attorney explained that this will be blown out of proportion in court to make her out to be a whore who was too drunk to remember exactly what happened.  She was warned that the defense attorney, who could very well be a woman, will do this regardless of any real proof.  So she didn't pursue.  This was back in the mid-90s, so I don't know if much has changed, but I find some of the tactics used in court very biased against victims.  Seguing into vigilante justice...My bud didn't tell her dad because he would have done more than slander his name in a blog.

  The harder question for me is on slander.  I can see both sides on this.  I don't have much faith in the U.S. justice system, but I think if a person publicly calls someone a rapist, then they should (at least for me to strongly consider the accusation) have some kind of proof well beyond the accusation itself.  With that said, I think the person claiming to be a victim should be free to say what they want, the accused can respond how they choose (sue for libel, create a blog, etc...), and everyone on the sidelines can believe what they want.

Who are these people?

But anyways, what do you think of another form of rape, namely rape accusations against political enemies. Like against Julian Assange. I don't know why a man spreading US government secrets should go around a rape 2 swedish girls. But after revelations that the NSA virtually wiretaps the whole net globe, the show trial of bradley manning and forcing the plane of the bolivian president to land because edward snowden could be on board, why shouldn't the CIA contact 2 girls that had something with assange because he is a semifamous dangerous man and offer them money and more fame when they claim he raped them. Or they were agents all along, as far as i know they came into contact via the internet, so there is a lot of room for all kind of dirty spy business.

Be careful calling something other than rape a "form of rape". Especially, uh, accusations of rape.

damned, I thought I'd kick off some informationrapepolitics related discussion, well, maybe form of rape was not that good of an expression, but Julian Assange probably got some kind of (form of) raped. I mean, if you run a website leaking top secret informations from the us gouvernment you especially don't go around raping people, you just don't do it! Otherwise they might have something on you besides the truth you reveal and they don't want to be heard... in my opinion these swedish accusating girl are dissappointed fangirls bought out by $randomsecretservice. The funny thing is I have no facts to back this, just my own sense for people.

I will echo what trapezoid said, please do not call things that are not rape, rape. Rape is defined by UK law under The Sexual Offences Act 2003 as:

"The definition of rape includes the penetration by a penis of the vagina, anus or mouth of another person. The 2003 Act also updates the law about consent and belief in consent." Source (http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk/rapeampsexualviolence2.php)

If this did not happen to Julian Assange then he was not raped, nor was he kind of, sort of, or some form of raped. Rape is not a term you need to use to creatively describe this situation. There are words already is existence to describe what happened to him. In your opinion he might have been "framed" or "set up" or be a "victim of political deception". There is no need to bring rape into it. The government have not penetrated him physically, they may have levied false accusations against him. Not the same in any sense of the word.

I don't know all the facts of the Assange case so I'm not going to say he did or he didn't, but I don't think being the owner of Wikileaks makes him any more of less likely to rape. Plenty of people in power have done stupid things so why would he be any different?

We use many words in a metaphorical sense. Not sure why rape should be any different.

You can say someone was dying or that something was "torturous".

Language is flexible.

Wait now, everybody, things are getting a bit confused here.

Myinah, I'm not sure what your post refers to, but "rape" wasn't being used metaphorically (at least not in Selmiak's first post - the second one I have no idea really) - it's true Julian Assange was accused of rape in Sweden. I believe the accusations were later downgraded to sexual harassment. Also, your definition of rape, which I guess is the British law text, is extremely narrow and furthermore not how the Swedish law defines it. For starters, there doesn't have to be a penis involved. So anything that's sexual in nature that is being violently forced upon another is basically rape.

Using rape in some contexts is offensive to people who have been through it. In Julian Assanges case I dont see how it is comparable to rape. I think rape is used far too casually as a word. I personally take issue with it, but in most cases when people say it I stay quiet. Especially in the gaming community when "Oh, you totally raped me bro!" is used in the context of defeat.

I do not disagree with you Andail, merely citing British Law, however the rest would be defined as assault over here. I would probably agree with Swedish law in many instances and obviously hasnt taken into consideration a woman raping a man without her penetrating him. I apologise if you assumed I thought otherwise.

Anyway, my opinion, feel free to disregard. I don't like the word being used out of context, in the same way I dislike people using the word retarded or gay as negative descriptors. If it isn't rape, dont call it rape. 1 in 3 women (many sources but here's just one. (http://www.oneinthreewomen.com/)) are reported to be victims of sexual crime, not fun for them to have to hear it used flippantly or in cases where it is clearly, clearly not comparable. I believe and support your right to choose whatever words you want to describe things, but I reserve the right to tell you why I think it's not okay and that I dont like it.

Myinah, you rock 8-)

"Not raped but still -kind of- rape" reminds me of "Piracy is theft. Well not -theft- but still basically theft." people.

There is a prexisting name for that crime. Using the name of a completely different crime to make it sound worse makes you sound like kind of an ass.

Quote
Using rape in some contexts is offensive to people who have been through it.

Ditto torture, murder (by proxy obviously) and many other heinous things we use flippantly as metaphor.

I believe that by singling it out you give it an almost demonic power over the victims.
Considering feminism comes from a heavily post-structuralist background, feminists do tend to overlook the effect that *they* are having on societal norms
I think this kind of selective pressure upon the word and indeed the act makes it worse for victims, not better.

Quote from: Andail on Sat 14/09/2013 17:54:34
Wait now, everybody, things are getting a bit confused here.

Myinah, I'm not sure what your post refers to, but "rape" wasn't being used metaphorically (at least not in Selmiak's first post - the second one I have no idea really)

It might have been lost in the second post, but Selmiak said that Assange was a victim of rape in some sense. That's what Myinah was objecting to, and I think quite rightly.

Of course the word 'rape' can be used figuratively. But whatever you think about Assange he wasn't a victim of rape, literally or figuratively.

Quote from: Ali on Sun 15/09/2013 01:25:57
But whatever you think about Assange he wasn't a victim of rape, literally or figuratively.

Yes, I wasn't defending that point at all. Thank for clarifying that.

Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Sun 15/09/2013 01:23:56

Quote
Using rape in some contexts is offensive to people who have been through it.

Ditto torture, murder (by proxy obviously) and many other heinous things we use flippantly as metaphor.

That's... a little different. Not many victims of murder are likely to read people joking about murdering people. And torture is kind of niche as far as crimes goes.
Rape is also, sadly, a lot more common than all of those crimes. Whether it is, with victims out of the equation, acceptable to use is another dicussion though.

Perhaps add 'and pillage' to the end of it. Somehow Vikings don't get a bad rap. Mass theft and burning down towns somehow make it more palatable.

Assange was merely 'surprised' by the CIA.

Quote from: Galen on Sun 15/09/2013 01:36:26
That's... a little different. Not many victims of murder are likely to read people joking about murdering people. And torture is kind of niche as far as crimes goes.

For now, yes. Just give it some time. Eventually there will be a set of strong events and proper (read: sensational) news coverage that will give an equally strong effect on people and collective mindset enough to reconsider the connotation behind those words, and the way how to use them.

It's been less that eight-nine years since we could even carelessly mention stuff about Muhammad.

Quote from: Ali on Sun 15/09/2013 01:25:57
It might have been lost in the second post, but Selmiak said that Assange was a victim of rape in some sense. That's what Myinah was objecting to, and I think quite rightly.

Of course the word 'rape' can be used figuratively. But whatever you think about Assange he wasn't a victim of rape, literally or figuratively.

may i rephrase my wording, for assange i meant the word rape methaphorical, probably not a fitting contrasting choice, I mean he was framed there, not set up, but then, maybe the whole meeting was set up, I'd totally fall for 2 swedisch fembots, uhm, or fangirls.:=

I probably read a few posts a bit sloppily - I definitely agree that Assange hasn't been raped, even figuratively.

When it comes to whether "rape" should even be used figuratively, that's probably another debate.

Im going to put it another way

Sheltering recent victims of sexual assault from triggering words and images is not wrong. Some people need space to heal. We are talking in generalizations because of course everyone has their own coping mechanisms, but honestly Calin, once you have experienced rape it is very hard to disassociate the attack you experienced from the word itself. When that word pops up it can trigger serious flashbacks, Many victims suffer for PTSD and so it can take some time to get to a place where that word does not have the same impact.

I speak not only from personal experience but from time spent volunteering at a crisis centre when I was training as a counsellor. 10 years since I was attacked and I have no symptoms of PTSD and I am comfortable hearing and saying the word. When I was 16? No. Not at all. I wasn't playing a victim, I was recovering from being raped. Speaking with victims of rape and assault on the crisis line and at the centre assures me I am not incorrect. It is not about feminism, at least for me, it is about respecting people who have recently been through a traumatic event.

The thing about rape is that it is so common. You wouldnt compare something trivial to a school shooting in front of people who had experienced that, but the chances are you wont know anyone who has been though that. So maybe one day you do and then a parent who has lost a child is listening, or someone who survived one. They probably wont appreciate it. As I said before, 1 in 3 women are sexually abused in some form, and some might not have had much time to process it. They might be sensitive. They might not tell you what you said hurt them, but they might go away and feel trivialised further. It's just something to think about. Rape survivors can overcome their attacks, absolutely. I'm a survivor, your words have not affected me. However you must appreciate people take varying amounts of time to overcome things and that you may be hurting people with your words without realising.

I remember a gay guy at my work who wasn't really out to us, people threw around "That's so gay!" or "Quit being such a f**" all the time. It hurt him. They didn't know he was gay, and definitely wouldn't have said it if they had known, but people take for granted that everyone is just cool with stuff being a certain way.

I always think of tazers being an excellent comparison of why we should be careful with words. Used correctly tazers can be an excellent way to stop criminals, and 99% of time they wont leave lasting damage. But you only need to hit that one innocent person with a heart condition and it's a deadly weapon. I'm not the word police. I honestly don't care what language you use in relation to its affect on me personally, but I have different life experiences to you and so I appreciate there can be a deeper impact that you might realise.

Anyway, I'm not going to say any more really, and I appreciate everyone has an opinion :) Also please don't take the disclosure of my own experience with sexual violence to portray me as a delicate flower or that I've now tried to make it impossible to disagree with me because that was not the intention. I have been hesitant to bring it up partly because it is private but also because I like people to give impartial and real opinions even if they disagree with my own. You all raise interesting and insightful points even if I disagree.

Is the commonness of rape the only issue?

For instance, let's assume I told a joke in which one of the players was murdered or I showed a friend a cartoon in which someone was killed and he turned around to me and said: "Oh, actually my father was murdered just like that..". How would we be expected to handle that in wider society?

Don't get me wrong, I am not the type to throw rape around casually because I appreciate that it can cause distress and I'd simply rather not but the very knowledge that something can cause distress or offence is categorically *not* enough to stop one from doing it especially when talking about freedom of expression. If the only reason you can put forward for this kind of pseudo-censorship is "because it might upset or offend someone" then you really have no case.

It's just about mindfulness and tact.

The word 'rape' is interesting because on the one hand it is becoming more taboo than it was even a few years ago, especially in the wake of the 'everydaysexism' and 'sexism in games' debates doing the rounds at the moment.  But on the other hand, the word is also enjoying a slang meaning for 'to beat someone (at a game)'* or 'get one over' on someone.  I'm hearing it more and more, I'm even using it sometimes, and in this sense at least it is losing it's tabooness and even possibly even becoming separated from the literal nasty sense of the word.  So separated in fact, that even my mum says 'frape' and my girlfriend says 'yawn rape', and they are not ones to usually talk about rape so flippantly.

*I put an asterisk next to 'beat' because this has a similar double meaning, you can beat someone (brutally, illegally, with a lead piping in the study) or you can beat them (at a game of chess or football).  The fact that some children are severely beaten isn't going to stop me using the word 'beat', however deplorable.  Obviously 'beat' is nowhere near as strong a word as 'rape', but what I'm suggesting is that we could be seeing a divergence of meaning, and maybe 30-40 years down the line, 'rape' will be both a common word to describe getting one over on an opponent AND a serious and detestable sex crime.

For the time being, I'll stick to mindfulness and tact.  Use the word but don't abuse it.
And I guess that depends what you define as 'abuse' :-/

You seem to be misunderstanding me. I am not saying you can't say anything. I'm saying people should consider what they are saying and if it is really necessary to use the term. Its a recommendation. And its based partly on the prevalence of sexual crimes.

Racist jokes aren't considered okay by most people, of my group of friends, rape jokes aren't either. I dont think jokes that make fun of victims or an oppressed people are funny myself but I will defend anyones right to spout whatever pops into their head under freedom of speech. I have not at any point said people should be censored have I? I'm making a suggestion that maybe rape is a word people should think about before throwing around. Just a suggestion. Not sure why you keep thinking I am trying to stop people, when I'm just asking them to consider something they may not have thought much about.

That being said I might exert my right to speak freely and tell you that when you use the word rape out of context I think it can be offensive and upsetting to people who have actually experienced it (1 in 3 women I again reiterate). And you are totally free to ignore it. I'm still not trying to censor everyone, just expressing an opinion in case it had not been considered before. Is that clearer? Genuinely confused as to why censorship keeps coming up when I repeatedly state that isn't what I'm wanting. 

Quote from: Myinah on Sun 15/09/2013 18:02:59Genuinely confused as to why censorship keeps coming up when I repeatedly state that isn't what I'm wanting. 

Because it's the favorite excuse of people who want to maintain the status quo.
At this point in time, were it slowly dawns on all the dudebros how severe a problem rape and sexism actually are, they just love to complain about how evil feminists want to oppress them. It's really disgusting but not too surprising.

Didn't realise I was a dudebro.

Quote from: Khris on Sun 15/09/2013 19:05:51
Because it's the favorite excuse of people who want to maintain the status quo.
At this point in time, were it slowly dawns on all the dudebros how severe a problem rape and sexism actually are, they just love to complain about how evil feminists want to oppress them. It's really disgusting but not too surprising.

I get your point, and in many cases it is sad.
I have to add though, I don't think that is as black and white to that much extent. Censorship is only an easy and cheap solution to 'solve' a problem, to make it virtually nonexistent, and has a strong dependence to morality which doesn't have an universal definition of what could be bad or good. It is after all something a lot of philosophers are trying to define.

The dilemma is this... Asking for someone to be more careful to how they speak is a polite way to say to censor themselves and their emotion so they don't hurt someone else. And asking anybody for not asking for others to be careful with their words is also censorship. And telling people who went through an hurtful/traumatic event that they have to keep it to themselves and not to share their pain/concern/etc... is also censorship. The moment someone says to another to shut up, keep it low or to be careful of the words they have use is technically censorship.
So actually both sides are genuinely concerned about their rights on free speech, and they're both resilient to auto-censor themselves for the sake of each other's side. Which in the end puts a shadow on the real issue at hand.

Censorship's a fascinating mind gnawing topic. Also the thematic of a webcomic I'm doing right now. It's kinda à  propos. =D

Quoteignorance is no excuse for the law

I'd suggest the same goes for 'laws' of human decency, 'laws' for morality etc.

Freedom of speech is great. But if someone says something pretty stupid/ignorant/racist etc, it still makes them a bit of asshole.

I'm in no way suggesting anyone here is an asshole, I'm just throwing it out there. Cue moral dilemma debate.

Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Sun 15/09/2013 21:40:32
Didn't realise I was a dudebro.

My comment wasn't necessarily directed at you personally.
You do seem to take Shermer's side though, and disagree with "all feminist angles you've read". So I guess the fact that you probably aren't wearing pink A&E shirts with popped collars is kinda negligible then.
Seriously though, are you opposed to feminism, or the caricature you apparently were exposed to (and I'd include Sarkeesian in that category)?

I do believe that gender is a social construct and I do believe that society is still very sexist and I actually agree with sarkesian almost all the time. I am, mostly, a feminist.
I agree with sarkesian on almost everything she says. Society *sucks* for women and I wish it didn't. I also hope feminism continues to grow and prosper because I think they are, on the whole, making a positive difference.

However, I do side with Shermer and I think he should sue for defamation. One of the pillars of our justice system is that the accused can face their accuser and publishing anonymous accusations of a very serious crime with a high degree of social stigma is irresponsible and dangerous. If you accuse someone of a crime then you'd better be willing to prove it or *at least* attempt to prove it in court. You do not have carte blanche to throw around shit like that. It's illegal and for good reason.

If Shermer is guilty then he can go and fuck himself but until that's shown in a court of law he is, as far as I'm concerned, innocent.

Now, it's true that rape is difficult to prove and it also sucks for the alleged victim and I really hate that. I wish we had a better system but accusing people and letting the mob decide is not a better system.

The "feminist angles" I've read mostly put forward this argument:
"If by speaking out PZ has saved some women from being raped then he has done a good thing"
To which I reply "horse shit". Innocent until proven guilty is sacrosanct and saving women from being raped is not the paramount priority. Preserving the rule of law is.
*That* is the problem I have with 3rd wave feminism. They would burn civilization to the ground if it meant no more women were raped and that's not something I can fully support.

Incidentally, the notion that I am a "dudebro" (short hand for a simpleton idiot i imagine in your mind) simply because I have intellectual differences with your ideology is beneath you. It's childish and dogmatic and, frankly, the recourse of a simpleton idiot.

If you don't want to be called a simpleton, why are you saying that feminists "would burn civilization to the ground if it meant no more women were raped" ???
I also never actually called you a dudebro in the first post, and only jokingly in the next. And I'd never insult people over a mere difference of opinion. I only do it when they say something really stupid- err, I mean, don't agree with my "ideology".

Re Shermer: rape is a very unique crime. And the circumstances matter in this case. When it comes to how likely it is that the accusations are true, he does have acquired a reputation for being a cheating sleazebag.
By saying that he's innocent until proven guilty, you're also saying that the woman accusing him is an evil liar, and you're dismissing her account and the accounts of the other women who came forward as not being evidence.

It's easy to say "I wish things were different". Yes, the system isn't perfect. Does that mean we have to let people like Shermer get away with it (assuming for the sake of argument, that he is in fact guilty)? I don't think so.
There's always the risk of wronging someone, and sure, the US for instance has executed a lot of innocent people by now. But we can't keep letting rapists get away with it just because there wasn't a HD camera around.
And the main thing that irks me is that whenever it comes to rape, some (most?) men seem to pretty much assume from the start that the allegation is false. Yes, there are some women who falsely accuse men of rape on a whim. But when absolutely nothing at all suggests that this is the case, why should we err on his side?

Also, let's look at the bigger picture: what if, by supporting the women who come forward, rapists start to think twice about doing it? What if we actually managed to overcome rape culture? I'm willing to step over a few "bodies" to get there faster.

Quote from: Khris on Mon 16/09/2013 01:50:51
By saying that he's innocent until proven guilty, you're also saying that the woman accusing him is an evil liar, and you're dismissing her account and the accounts of the other women who came forward as not being evidence.

I am quite literally stunned that you've said that. Do you know nothing of justice?

I'm not saying he is in actual fact innocent, only the 2 involved and God know that for sure, but until he is found guilty in a court of law either by a group of his peers (or the judiciary depending on where you live) then we treat him as innocent. This is like Western Civilisation 101. I'm not implying the woman is lying I am merely assuming the default position under the law.

Quote from: Khris on Mon 16/09/2013 01:50:51
And the main thing that irks me is that whenever it comes to rape, some (most?) men seem to pretty much assume from the start that the allegation is false.

With a criminal offence (as opposed to a civil one) the burden of proof is upon the accuser. The allegation is false until shown otherwise. I don't care if there are rumours about shermer being a sleaze. That's not how we do things in civilised society. Why should rape be any different to any other crime?

Quote from: Khris on Mon 16/09/2013 01:50:51
Yes, there are some women who falsely accuse men of rape on a whim. But when absolutely nothing at all suggests that this is the case, why should we err on his side?

Because that's how western justice works. Innocent until proven guilty. I'm not on anyone's side, I'm merely suggesting the totally radical view that someone should be allowed to face their accuser in a court of law and be deemed innocent until proven otherwise. I know it's crazy! It's like I don't want to live under a medieval justice system or something.

Quote from: Khris on Mon 16/09/2013 01:50:51
It's easy to say "I wish things were different". Yes, the system isn't perfect. Does that mean we have to let people like Shermer get away with it (assuming for the sake of argument, that he is in fact guilty)? I don't think so.
There's always the risk of wronging someone, and sure, the US for instance has executed a lot of innocent people by now. But we can't keep letting rapists get away with it just because there wasn't a HD camera around.

What do you propose then? We start guessing? We could maybe do away with "beyond all reasonable doubt" and start going with "as long as it sort of looks plausible".

Your lack of logic is baffling, Khris. I don't even know where to start. The irrelevance of someone being an "evil liar" or not in the face of very real possibility of people being liars, which certainly isn't any less than the possibility of people being ("evil"?) rapists? Saying that "just because" someone wasn't proven to be guilty we shouldn't let them "get away" with it? Your intent to culturally fight rape by semi-knowingly accepting (or almost encouraging by the sound of it?) the injustice over other innocent people as some kind of noble sacrifice for the raped people? Wanting to discourage rapists and encourage liars? The idea of fighting the culture of injustice and violation by some more injustice and violation is the most baffling. This is a trainwreck of an argument. There don't have to be any compromises between liars and rapists. There must be as much justice for all as possible. And it sure as hell begins with innocent until proven guilty for all involved parties no matter what they are suspected of doing.

Maybe I should have made this clear from the start, but I kind of assumed it to be obvious: I am not talking of actually convicting Shermer or throwing him in prison. Of course I'm not suggesting the justice system switch to "guilty until proven innocent" when trying rape cases.

We are all aware that Shermer is never going to see an actual court room from the inside over this, so I thought it was clear that I'm talking solely about the "court of public opinion". I'm talking about the fact that if somebody asked me whether Shermer did it, I'd say without hesitation "yes, of course he did it".
Calin started this thread by asking "should women use other tactics such as potential libel and slander in order to protect themselves and others?"
And I'm answering "yes, and here's why", at least as long as he's referring to actual victims and non-libel.

Edit:
He also said, that even if PZ Myers had evidence, he shouldn't have gone public with this.
And I'm saying: bullshit, she was right to go public.

It surely created a reaction by going public; for motivating something like discussions and - let's hope - an thorough investigation to get the bottom of that case, and to put justice where justice is due.
On the other hand the public is not the best judge out there. I might even say it's the less fair kind of judge to date.

Nefasto re your censorship post I have to disagree and say asking someone to consider another view point is not censoring them, even politly.

Telling someone to shut up, or stop is an attempt at censoring, absolutely. Explaining your viewpoint to someone and asking them to take it into consideration before choosing their words is absolutely in no way censoring. The person might choose other language in the future, they were able to make an informed choice about it. That isnt censorship, no one forced anyone to change anything, the person simply took on board the view of another and chose for themselves. The person could equally take on board the information and ignore it. How has calmly explaining something become the same as censoring? 

If I took you guys to court, or started a petition or said "You can't say that or I will complain or make reports" or whatever, then yes I think that would be an attempt at censorship. But if you are saying I can't explain another viewpoint to someone because it will censor them, surely I'm being censored no? When I am not even slightly attempting that! Communication might affect a positive change in the way I hope, but that isn't censorship. Most people have the option to choose to filter their words based on their own standards of morality (which has been pointed out as flexible itt) and so if another viewpoint affects a person then they might choose to include an extra word on the think twice list. They are not obligated too, no one is forcing them, so again how is that censorship? How is someone making their own mind up not to say something based on new information censorship? I think my explanations have been calm and fair and not in the slightest aimed at censoring anyone or forcing anyone to agree with me so again it baffles me this is still being treated as such.

Seems to be a bit of a feminist/censorship strawperson in this thread.

Quote from: Myinah on Mon 16/09/2013 08:52:04
If I took you guys to court, or started a petition or said "You can't say that or I will complain or make reports" or whatever, then yes I think that would be an attempt at censorship. But if you are saying I can't explain another viewpoint to someone because it will censor them, surely I'm being censored no?

I believe that's one of the point I was trying to make.

Also, that post was neutral. It was general to every sides, not only one.

But you said explaining my side and offering a suggestion was censorship. Unless I misunderstood. I'm asking how is it censorship? I explained why I believe it is not.

Well, I did indeed say...

QuoteAsking for someone to be more careful to how they speak is a polite way to say to censor themselves and their emotion so they don't hurt someone else.

Which is about, for example, your side to suggest that people should be careful in choosing their words in consideration of your viewpoint.
But then I directly went to...

QuoteAnd asking anybody for not asking for others to be careful with their words is also censorship.

Which is about the other people's side that, for example, they don't want you to make that suggestion.
And I then went on...

QuoteAnd telling people who went through an hurtful/traumatic event that they have to keep it to themselves and not to share their pain/concern/etc... is also censorship.

Which is about another kind of people who simply, for example, wants you to shut up for bothering them with your problems.

That whole paragraph was describing a dilemma - about censorship and in extent free speech - by looking at three possible sides (I could go on and on with many possible other ones). It was very generallistic, also to avoid pointing fingers to anyone. Also it was a response to Khris's post where censorship was brought up; it being an easy excuse claimed by the 'dudebros' which is sadly also true. A truth that taints people who genuinely wants to bring up the topic of censorship and free speech which both also have very strong role in the debate.

As to why I consider "asking/suggesting to be careful to how someone has to speak" is a form of polite way to censor, well... How can I illustrate this?... It's like openly cursing in public. It's liberating for the guy who cursed, let's say, out of frustration. It's funny for a bunch of people. Some won't bat an eye. And it's shocking for the rest. Because I saw these offended ones I go to the guy and calmly tell him he shouldn't have done that. I'll go on and suggest that he should have thought of another way to verbally express his frustration to avoid offending the people out there. And it's a perfectly good reason at that!! One has just to be more contained for the better and happiness for the majority of the people. The intention was relatively good. But if I think about it, I've somewhat asked him to never curse like that again in public. I wasn't really considering the guy freedom to express himself the way he wanted. I only considered what he did was wrong by only looking at the offended people, at my experience and at my moral standpoint; which is my right as well. But I can't entirely say I wasn't trying to censor him with my suggestion. No matter if he was still free to listen to me or not.

And this a dilemma I try to put a spotlight on as well.

So do you feel that one person is more important than the majority, even though they are still free to do as they like? I should not offer an alternative point of view just in case he changes his future actions because even though more people were upset than not upset, we can't risk the concept of one person potentially being stifled in the future for causing offence?

The rape comparison was not borne out of frustration which you use in your comparison. It was somebody sat at a computer, typing a response. I don't believe we can control emotive outbursts, but we can control what we write online because we have the time to sit here and think about what we are writing. I look at an emotive outburst and a considered response differently. If I went and corrected a person in some distress tbh I would think I was a bit of an ass. There is a time and a place to correct people on their language, when they are having a distressing emotion that elicits cursing it's not the time. I would be too concerned about what had them upset in the first place.

Also curse words are offensive to some, but are they likely to trigger a PTSD episode? Does saying "Fuck" or "Shit" trivialise the experience of a group of trauma survivors? If someone shouted the n word it would be more in line with what I was suggesting. If someone white shouted that word in public, there would be no emotive reason behind it aside from racism and so I would probably challenge him on the use of the word. I dont care if he stubbed his toe and it was the first thing that popped to mind. He can still think about it and maybe just say "FUCK"! next time. He doesn't have to do it, but he should be asked to think about it. We are talking about words upsetting to an oppressed or marginalized group for a particular reason, not just because some people find them crass.

Honestly I think this attitude is why we have seen such entitled, navel gazing turn in society with a sometimes shocking lack of empathy. It's almost like we cant possible expect people to be selfless once in a while and exert a bit of self control. Everyone is a special snowflake and it only matters if individuals are happy and saying every asinine thought that pops into their heads. An effective community does involve considering the reasonable feelings of others and sometimes compromising. Society functions better when we all agree on a certain set of rules to make life easier and more pleasant such as standing to the right on the escalators on the underground. Maybe I feel like standing on the left, but I don't because that would make me an asshole and upset a bunch of people. I could stand there, dig my heels in and piss everyone off, but I don't because it doesn't horribly inconvenience me not to do it, as it would the commuters in a hurry who would end up behind me.

Again I support anyone's right to say whatever they like, but you know I don't see expressing a response to it as censorship unless they are literally saying "You can't say that!"

I'm not suggesting we all live life under a huge list of rules, but being considerate of others is a pretty good one I think. Especially if it isn't going to really fuck up your own day. Is not comparing things to rape that are clearly nothing like rape going to totally damage someone psychologically and emotionally? I doubt it. Asking someone to think about it going to make them more aware of the choices they make and rape culture in general? I hope so because becoming more self aware is hardly a bad thing in life. Censorship is wrong, asking others to think about their actions in a thoughtful and polite way isn't wrong and in my opinion not the same.

I guess I'll just agree to disagree and leave it there. I understand you feel it is a dilemma, but to me I just don't see it. People are free to make up their own minds and say whatever they want in my book, but if thinking things through and being considerate is wrong then frankly I don't want to be right.

Hum... The cursing guy story was an example. Not a comparison. And in no way it is related to the rape topic.
I would have said so if it was, but it wasn't. Thus I didn't. That would have been silly.

Also: One person is AS important AS the majority. The same goes that a minority is AS important AS the majority. Not more, not less. Which was my point, concerning free speech.

But thank you for your overall interpretation. That was interesting. =D

Quote from: Khris on Mon 16/09/2013 02:42:35We are all aware that Shermer is never going to see an actual court room from the inside over this,

Actually, it's likely that he is. He's pursuing legal actions against Myers for defamation of character and I think he has a pretty good case.

QuoteCalin started this thread by asking "should women use other tactics such as potential libel and slander in order to protect themselves and others?"
And I'm answering "yes, and here's why", at least as long as he's referring to actual victims and non-libel.

This doesn't really make any sense, though. If they are an 'actual victim' can only be determined through evidence. Likewise a damaging accusation is libel unless it has facts, admissible in a court of law, to back it up. If you mean to say that this is okay as long as, as you apparently have decided in this case, the guy being accused is probably guilty I can appreciate (but not agree with) the sentiment, but surely you can see that this is totally unworkable?

It really is a good example of why our system works the way it does. Absolutism of the law has its own problems (most prominently on display in rape cases) but if you are to have a system where people are, in the eyes of the law, gauged differently under a reasoned probability of their guilt it would entrench and worsen all the prejudices that affect the justice system.

This case made me think a bit about the problem of rape and the view expressed by some that the treatment of rape cases is down to patriarchy and misogyny. They certainly rear their heads (particularly in cases here in Australia involving footballers and in the horrific Steubenville case) But I think far more so from the media and often the vox pops than anyone in an official position. I think the unfortunate nature of rape trials is down to a few factors that, if not impossible to remedy, are down to one important factor - witnesses.

The key piece of evidence in most trials are testimonies of independent witnesses. In most rape cases, they due to the nature of the crime and where it takes place. This means that we will have the testimony of the accuser and the testimony of the defendant. The contested point is generally not that sex took place (rendering DNA evidence moot) but that consent was given. This means in the majority of cases defence lawyers will tear apart the accusers testimony and portray them as a liar in court.

It is indeed unfortunate, but I think it ultimately has very little to do with sexism - it appears to because rape is generally a crime where a female is the victim due to physical differences between the sexes that should go without saying. I imagine male rape victims receive very similar treatment on the rare occasions that the case is reported and followed through to the courtroom.

When I said Shermer isn't going to court over this, I was referring to the rape, not the "libel".

Now, to make clear what I'm saying: if a person is the victim of a sex crime, it is a good thing to go public. There might be no witnesses, the evidence might be long gone, it might have been decades ago, but it doesn't matter. Sexual predators should be outed as such, so other potential victims are warned.
The only reason I can imagine why people would object to this: an innocent guy might get accused that way. Sure, that's a possibility. But this can always happen, and somebody who wants to falsely portrait someone else as a rapist isn't going to be stopped by people who think you shouldn't go public without evidence, right?
So what you and Calin are saying basically amounts to "dear raped people, keep your mouth shut unless you can prove it". And of the people who are going to keep shutting up because of this hostile attitude, pretty much 100% are actual victims.

Shermer's victim went public because she had kept quiet for years but had heard that other women were speaking out about open misogyny and harassment. And she used PZ to do it because his voice carries much weight, and people will rightly assume that he isn't going to do this on a whim.

Let's just do away with due process altogether then shall we?
As you said, pretty much 100% are actual victims so we should probably just do away with western justice altogether.

If this were *any other* crime you'd be on our side. But the emotional component of rape is clouding your usually objective mind.

I would like to amend your inflammatory quote though to something like

"Dear everyone, don't make damaging accusations against other people unless you have evidence and are willing to defend your claims in a court of law."

To be clear, I'm not saying that false claims of rape are rampant or even common. Most studies suggest the figure to be between 2% and 10%.
However that doesn't mean we abandon our principles.

As for all the stuff about calling the alleged victim a "liar", that's simply how an adversarial legal systems works and it is like that for a very good reason.

I don't know why you keep misrepresenting what I'm saying. I'm not talking about a court of law, or due process, or innocent until proven guilty.
All I'm saying is that rape victims should not keep silent because they don't have evidence.
Note that I'm not saying "alleged rape victims". Note that I'm not saying we should believe every single rape claim and hunt down the accused. You seem to keep confusing what I'm saying with things I'm clearly not saying.

Let me put it this way: if a close friend of mine approached me, told me they were raped by person X and asked me whether they should post it on the internet to warn other potential victims, I'd tell them "yes, do it". I hope that's clear enough.
Granted, there's a very slim chance that this close friend is actually deceiving me, that there wasn't any rape, and that they're asking me just to play some sick game or whatever. In fact, a German TV personality got wrongly accused of rape years ago, immediately lost their job over it and is only now making a slow comeback with small presentation jobs. He did have a reputation as a bit of a womanizing pig though, but the girl had psychological issues and apparently it wasn't the first time she did this. So no clouds at all here, I'm aware of the risks.

But just to reiterate: I'm saying "dear rape victims, please don't keep silent, even if you can't prove what happened".
(A pedantic person might even point out that there's no possible way this could go wrong, because I'm only addressing actual victims.)

I also suggest to reread the two images on the first page.

Quote from: Khris on Thu 26/09/2013 11:04:32
Let me put it this way: if a close friend of mine approached me, told me they were raped by person X and asked me whether they should post it on the internet to warn other potential victims, I'd tell them "yes, do it". I hope that's clear enough.
Granted, there's a very slim chance that this close friend is actually deceiving me, that there wasn't any rape, and that they're asking me just to play some sick game or whatever.

There's also the possibility that this close friend could be taken to court for defamation of character and convicted based on their lack of evidence of the rape, which in turn does harm to them.

What we need to do is somehow remove the stigma that prevents rape victims from pursuing legal action immediately after the rape, when there is the best chance for conviction of the offender.  Acting too late, while done with the best of intentions, could result in more harm to the accuser.

I guess what I'm saying is similar to what Jared says.  I can appreciate that the intent is to warn others of a possible rape situation, but doing so openly and publicly without evidence puts you at risk of being on the wrong end of legal action.

In my mind, innocent until proven guilty applies to the court of public opinion. If you aren't willing to abide by that then you should be willing to accept a defamation/libel suit in response.

As to what rape victims should do, they should speak out and go to the police.
I have exactly zero issue with women speaking out. They absolutely should but they should make formal complaints to law enforcement. This stuff is illegal and perpetrators should be brought to justice.

What is also illegal however is publishing unproven hearsay.

If a friend of mine said they had been raped by person X I would go with them to the police to file a police report rather than resorting to a popular blog. I hope that's clear enough.
Rape cases have been prosecuted *years* after the fact so it's always worth going to the police.

EDIT:

BTW the same applies to those receiving threatening communication online. Death threats are *very* illegal and it's very easy to trace a youtube comment or a blog comment. If someone fears for their safety then they should go to law enforcement.

Quote from: Khris on Thu 26/09/2013 09:47:54
When I said Shermer isn't going to court over this, I was referring to the rape, not the "libel".

The only possible defense Myers has is to successfully prosecute a case against Shermer that is deemed sufficient proof that he is a sexual predator. Unless there is a settlement outside of court it's going to get uglier than it already was.

QuoteNow, to make clear what I'm saying: if a person is the victim of a sex crime, it is a good thing to go public.

I agree. It is important that there is awareness of sexual assault and the circumstances in which it can happen.

QuoteThere might be no witnesses, the evidence might be long gone, it might have been decades ago, but it doesn't matter. Sexual predators should be outed as such, so other potential victims are warned.

And this where I disagree. In principle, there is nothing objectionable about the idea but, again, it relies on somehow having 100% certainty of the veracity of a testimony.

As Calin says, false rape claims are not common. If we go with the low end of that estimate - 2%. BUT there are 250,000 cases of rape per year. That would make 2% 5,000 which is not, in my opinion, an insignificant number.

You might say - "So what? If they're innocent they can prove it!" Actually, not really. The reason we have a system of innocence-until-proven-guilty is because PROVING innocence is far more difficult than proving guilt. Think about what a presumption of guilt really means. A lack of witnesses is irrelevant. Inconsistencies of motive or testimony are also irrelevant. Evidence of the presence of somebody else on the scene is not evidence of innocence either, as that could simply be a hypothetical accomplice. Basically the only to actually PROVE innocence is if you have an iron-clad alibi.. and THAT relise on a precise time for when the crime took place.

QuoteSo what you and Calin are saying basically amounts to "dear raped people, keep your mouth shut unless you can prove it". And of the people who are going to keep shutting up because of this hostile attitude, pretty much 100% are actual victims.

Not at all. I have seen several people (in other fora, not here, obviously) accuse the story emailed to Myers of sounding fishy, using weasel words, etc. I dislike this point of view because just as Michael Shermer is entitled to a presumption of innocence this anonymous lady is entitled a fair, neutral hearing of her account. The best way of handling everything, though, was to go through the proper authorities and due process - if it happened as described it was abominable that conference organizers ignored her account, but it should have been reported to police right away. If the accusations were found to have basis those same organizers would be in the firing lines to get sued to Hell and back and I think that would have sent a much more palpable message about rape culture than this blog post has so far.

Obviously, this did not happen. But this doesn't mean she isn't allowed to speak up - she has the right to discreetly advise those of her contacts she feels need to know about Shermer's behaviour. This may have been why she contacted Myers in fact, and may have trusted him to handle things more discreetly himself.

QuoteShermer's victim went public because she had kept quiet for years but had heard that other women were speaking out about open misogyny and harassment. And she used PZ to do it because his voice carries much weight, and people will rightly assume that he isn't going to do this on a whim.

What I have read suggests that he has done this out of gut instinct rather than any true certainty involving the details of the alleged sexual assault. Whether that's better or worse than doing so on a whim is up to the beholder, I guess.

(http://2.media.collegehumor.cvcdn.com/58/32/collegehumor.df8845d6a531d704e23bfe27bc8716af.jpg)

I haven't weighed in on this before, but my take is that if someone has been raped by a known individual, they have a moral right (and perhaps even a moral duty to potential future victims) to publicly make that accusation, even if they cannot prove it. Of course, the public must then weigh the lack of evidence and the overall credibility of the claims, and should adhere to the principle of innocent until proven guilty in their official treatment of the accused (though anyone can of course take whatever attitude they want in private and in social contexts).

However, I think it's much more problematic if an accuser makes the accusations anonymously, or has someone else (who wasn't a first-hand witness and therefore cannot have complete certainty in the claims) go forward with them. The principle of an accused having a right to face their accuser is more relevant here than innocent until proven guilty. That doesn't necessarily mean a right to a personal confrontation, but that accusations be made detailed, specific and definite enough that there's a chance of disproving them, which has to include the identity of the alleged victim.

Anonymous accusations are an odious thing: easy to make with, impossible to refute, impossible to convince others to ignore, and trapping the accused in a Kafkaesque maze of suspicion and guilt (we all have something to feel guilty about). And false anonymous accusations are made, regularly, because there's no cost and almost no risk to the accuser. (The author James Lasdun has written a book about his experience with a stalker who spread anonymous/pseudonymous poison pen letters all over the internet, as well as to his colleagues and friends; he vividly describes it in this article (http://chronicle.com/article/I-Will-Ruin-Him/136693/).)

Quote from: dactylopus on Thu 26/09/2013 11:14:25
There's also the possibility that this close friend could be taken to court for defamation of character and convicted based on their lack of evidence of the rape, which in turn does harm to them.

Of course, civil cases have a lower burden of proof than criminal. So the whole "innocent until proven guilty" can be replaced by "on the balance of probabilities".

I think this is the first time Calin and I have ever agreed on anything. ;)   

Quote from: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/libel+per+se
libel per se n. broadcast or written publication of a false statement about another which accuses him/her of a crime, immoral acts, inability to perform his/her profession, having a loathsome disease (like syphilis), or dishonesty in business. Such claims are considered so obviously harmful that malice need not be proved to obtain a judgment for "general damages," and not just specific losses. (See: defamation, libel, slander)

Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Thu 26/09/2013 11:17:45
In my mind, innocent until proven guilty applies to the court of public opinion. If you aren't willing to abide by that then you should be willing to accept a defamation/libel suit in response.

I don't think Charlie Sheen's ever faced trial for his alleged domestic abuse, but would you rather it be a secret? Would you be okay with a friend of yours dating Charlie Sheen, in light of those unproven accusations?

It's easy to say "she should have gone to the police instead".
Whoever thinks that, did you ever hear/read why victims don't do that, especially not right after? I'm not going to go into it, because if you haven't, why are you participating in this discussion...?

Quote from: Khris on Fri 27/09/2013 07:42:15
It's easy to say "she should have gone to the police instead".
Whoever thinks that, did you ever hear/read why victims don't do that, especially not right after? I'm not going to go into it, because if you haven't, why are you participating in this discussion...?

Which goes back to my point that we should work to eliminate these stigmas.  People should not be made to feel shame, or self-blame, or any other negative feelings for reporting such a crime.  People should not be villainized for reporting a rape to the police.  I feel that this is impeding due process and perhaps even exacerbating the instances that this thread is debating in which public, mostly unprovable statements are made far after the fact.

I'm glad she found the courage to finally say something, but it is a shame that it may be too late (or lack sufficient evidence) to convict, and that it may be possible to convict her of defamation of character.

Which also explains why people do it anonymously; imagine being raped, then sued for libel by the perpetrator and losing...

Quote
It's easy to say "she should have gone to the police instead".
Whoever thinks that, did you ever hear/read why victims don't do that, especially not right after? I'm not going to go into it, because if you haven't, why are you participating in this discussion...?

It doesn't really matter why they do or don't.  If they don't there will be no public record of the accusation, there will be no investigation, the perp won't be prosecuted, and there will be no further recourse.  Anonymous do-overs long after the fact are not an option in a civilized and just society.

Each case is different.  Of course you can't reasonably expect a rapist to come to justice if their victim doesn't go to the authorities.  But you also can't always reasonably expect a victim to want to go to the police, especially if the rapist is someone with any degree of influence or power, or if the rapist has threatened 'don't tell anyone or I'll do the same to your sister' or something.

Dactyl says the victims shouldn't be made to feel shame for reporting a crime.  But I would add that they should also not be made to feel guilty for not wanting to come out with it.  They should just be gently reminded that it's okay if they do.  More ideally, the focus should be turned to trying to prevent rapists from striking in the first place... you actually hear very little about rape prevention.  All we ever hear is what people should or shouldn't do after it's already happened.

Quote from: Stupot+ on Fri 27/09/2013 12:34:23
Dactyl says the victims shouldn't be made to feel shame for reporting a crime.  But I would add that they should also not be made to feel guilty for not wanting to come out with it.

That's an interesting point. I would say I disagree (on not reporting the crime, not on avoid making victims feel guilty), but I can see moral/civic considerations clashing in that choice.

Back OT: rereading that post by Myers, I cannot but note an emphatic narration of his role ("and goddamn it, what's dominating my head isn't the consequences, but the question of what is the right thing to do", "With that, I cast this grenade away from me…", etc.) joined with a wily use of words (e.g.: "Putative assailant" infers Myers regards this as a case of supposed rape. He refers to Shermer's actions as "unethical behavior"; unethical behaviour?!? That's rape, for Christ's sake!).
It's silly to judge a person from a single post (maybe his lawyer reworded much of it? maybe he was in distress when he wrote it?) but the attitude and reporting skills do harm the matter.

Quote from: Stupot+ on Fri 27/09/2013 12:34:23More ideally, the focus should be turned to trying to prevent rapists from striking in the first place... you actually hear very little about rape prevention.  All we ever hear is what people should or shouldn't do after it's already happened.

Well you hear a lot about rape prevention. Unfortunately the comments are always that they should have prevented it by dressing like a Hazmat worker or forgoing any kind of social life outside of large swarm-like crowds of female friends escorted by armed guard.

Sadly the only real common advice that isn't entirely terrible is also generally obvious (dark alleys = bad, unattended drinks will be spiked with ruffies within several femtoseconds).

Quote from: Galen on Sat 28/09/2013 02:20:21
Well you hear a lot about rape prevention. Unfortunately the comments are always that they should have prevented it by dressing like a Hazmat worker or forgoing any kind of social life outside of large swarm-like crowds of female friends escorted by armed guard.

I've never heard anyone phrase it like that - maybe I'm in the wrong country. I know this can be taken as 'entirely terrible' sentiment, but isn't there a seed of a good idea in there, at least? Surely steps such as

1) Drinking in moderation unless you are with people you know and trust
2) Taking a friend with you to places / to see people you do not know well
3) Setting clear boundaries if you are feeling uncomfortable

And yes

4) Carefully considering what your choice of attire communicates

would be the most effective steps to prevention? I know that a lot of these things are considered infringements on lifestyle choices, but at the same time I feel that the crime of rape is such a personal offense that discussion of it gets somewhat muzzled by all the emotions involved. The triggers of rape are behavioral and psychological, so the best steps to prevent it run along the same lines - this doesn't mean that people who are victims are not 'behaving properly', or that it is their fault, which I realise some people idiotically hector them over (even women, particularly here in Australia)

And, because I really think this needs clarification - I am not saying that women cannot expose themselves as they want (within the law) with their clothing. I think that they need to be considerate of what they express, and that dressing with the intention of garnering sexual attention is best done when they are confident in how to deal with that attention. (And, say, if you don't want people staring at you between the club and the station you can always throw a coat on. Just saying)

Quote from: Galen on Sat 28/09/2013 02:20:21
Well you hear a lot about rape prevention. Unfortunately the comments are always that they should have prevented it by dressing like a Hazmat worker or forgoing any kind of social life outside of large swarm-like crowds of female friends escorted by armed guard.

I can honestly say I've never heard that argument applied to an individual victim (not counting the Internet, where the amount of heinous shit people will spew is unlimited). The closest was someone I know who said a woman who was raped was stupid for going with a man to his hotel room if she didn't want to have sex with him. Which is fair enough but besides the point since she would still have the right to change her mind.

Quote from: Jared on Mon 30/09/2013 08:22:50
I've never heard anyone phrase it like that - maybe I'm in the wrong country. I know this can be taken as 'entirely terrible' sentiment, but isn't there a seed of a good idea in there, at least?

Yeah, there's a difference between blaming the victim and offering useful survival tips. No one gets offended if they're told to lock the door at night, get the neighbors to pick up their mail while they're on vacation, not go into sketchy neighborhoods as a tourist... Even if this implies that your behavior affects your risk of getting robbed, no one takes that to mean that robbery is OK or that anyone but the robbers are to blame.

Quote from: Galen on Sat 28/09/2013 02:20:21
Surely steps such as

1) Drinking in moderation unless you are with people you know and trust
2) Taking a friend with you to places / to see people you do not know well
3) Setting clear boundaries if you are feeling uncomfortable

And yes

4) Carefully considering what your choice of attire communicates

would be the most effective steps to prevention?

While I largely agree that these will help to stop women from being victimized, the issue is that these are rape prevention tips for the victim.  They are all completely valid, and as Snarky points out, they mirror tips that we give to people to prevent their victimization in a variety of contexts.

But shouldn't we be targeting our rape prevention efforts on the perpetrators as well?  We make efforts to identify the causes of other crimes, but there doesn't seem to be as much discussion of this in regards to rape (although I have seen more of this recently).  How do we prevent people from raping others (aside from making it illegal and shameful)?  How can we discourage this behavior, or teach that it is unacceptable?  Is there a way to identify possible rapists and perhaps offer them an outlet for their sexual aggression?  Are there triggers that cause this behavior to manifest, and if so, what can we do to eliminate them from society?

Many would say that our culture is over-sexualized, and that the media is a large contributor, but I've read that sexual assault is far more prevalent in China and India where the media isn't nearly as openly sexual as it is here.  In both countries, sex is still quite a taboo topic (although that has been changing in recent years).  Those countries also have much larger percentages of men vs women (thanks to population control efforts), and while correlation cannot be said to be causation, this gender ratio could go a long way to helping us to understand the situation.

Anyways, I don't have any solutions here, merely observations.  But I feel that the responsibility of fixing this problem lies as much with the rapists as with the victims, if not more.

Quote from: dactylopus on Mon 30/09/2013 13:50:14But shouldn't we be targeting our rape prevention efforts on the perpetrators as well?

Yeah, I should have been clearer. What I had in mind when I said "you actually hear very little about rape prevention" was more about trying to prevent potential rapists from striking rather than telling potential victims to try and prevent themselves from being stricken upon.

Quote from: Stupot+ on Mon 30/09/2013 17:31:24

Quote from: dactylopus on Mon 30/09/2013 13:50:14But shouldn't we be targeting our rape prevention efforts on the perpetrators as well?

Yeah, I should have been clearer. What I had in mind when I said "you actually hear very little about rape prevention" was more about trying to prevent potential rapists from striking rather than telling potential victims to try and prevent themselves from being stricken upon.

I think that a campaign aimed at 'preventing potential rapists from striking' by talking directly to the rapist can be misguided. For instance:

(http://www.rapecrisisscotland.org.uk/workspace/uploads/files/rcs%5Btopten%5Dposta4fin.jpg) (http://www.rapecrisisscotland.org.uk/workspace/uploads/files/rcs%5Btopten%5Dposta4fin.jpg)[Click for full size.]

This is implying that rapists genuinely don't know what they're doing is wrong. Which I find very hard to believe, particularly for repeat offenders, who, from what I've read, make up 2/3 of rapists and commit 90% of rapes (Source: 2002 study (http://www.wcsap.org/sites/www.wcsap.org/files/uploads/webinars/SV%20on%20Campus/Repeat%20Rape.pdf)).

I get that the whole point of this poster is to flip the arguments of preventative measures on their heads, but is this framing going to help prevent rapes? Anyone who would heed this advice already is, and rapists know it's wrong but don't care.
Preventative measures, on the other hand, the ones this poster is lampooning, will prevent rapes. Even though we all wish they weren't necessary.

If you're going to target an ad towards men, it should be focusing on sobriety's effect on consent, or not being a bystander.
Take these ads, for instance: 
(http://www.mencanstoprape.org/images/stories/Images__Logos/Strength_Media/BI1.jpg)(http://osocio.org/images/uploads/Men-Can-Stop-Rape-Take-a-Stand-poster-3_thumb.jpg)

These promote productive behaviour for the 94% of males who aren't rapists, rather than stating patronisingly obvious claims like "rape is wrong, don't do it."

I hear "teach men not to rape" a lot, but that's exactly what happens, at least where I'm from.
No one I've ever met thinks rape is not wrong; you learn that as a child and it's constantly reinforced. When I was about to graduate school (all boys), the police came to my school and held an anti-rape seminar before Leavers' week (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schoolies_week), which aimed to teach the legal ramifications, dispel the social pressure to 'get laid' and discuss precisely what constitutes consent, particularly in the context of drugs and alcohol.

Despite this, rape still happens, and we don't know who the rapists are until they attempt to rape someone. It's never, under any circumstances, the victim's fault, and I can't stress that enough. However, without a way to get through to the perpetrators, giving people advice on how to lower the risk of becoming a victim remains the best preventative tool we have.

I agree actually.

I find the "teach men not to rape" campaign to be problematic for a whole host of reasons.

I also feel that it, to some degree, robs women of agency. This is ironically something I see a lot in feminist theory.

As I said before, rape prevention tips for potential victims are certainly helpful.  Victims are not always women, so it would be nice to see similar tips for men and children.  There should also be more encouragement to speak out against attackers.

The issue with a campaign targeting rapists is that there is currently no effective method.  As a society, we should continue to examine this so that we can come up with something that works better.  We need to get to the root of the problem.  Simply saying "don't rape people" isn't really helping anything.  I don't think that first poster is particularly effective (actually, I find it to be an attempt at humor that makes light of rape).  The next posters are better, because they can at least empower others to take action where they might not otherwise, but they still don't do the job.  I don't think this is an issue that can be solved by posters.

Either way, I don't think there is a problem with continuing to educate people that sexual assault is unacceptable.  Teaching potential abusers (not always men) not to rape will always be a valuable service, and in the future I hope that the results will improve along with the methods.

Quote from: Jared on Mon 30/09/2013 08:22:50
4) Carefully considering what your choice of attire communicates

The problem with this POV is that, no matter how much we'd like to shift responsibility to the victim, there's not a single article of clothing or lack thereof, not even full nudity, that communicates "Anybody who wants to fuck me gets to fuck me, no consent required."

Quote from: Eric on Tue 01/10/2013 23:44:47

Quote from: Jared on Mon 30/09/2013 08:22:50
4) Carefully considering what your choice of attire communicates

The problem with this POV is that, no matter how much we'd like to shift responsibility to the victim, there's not a single article of clothing or lack thereof, not even full nudity, that communicates "Anybody who wants to fuck me gets to fuck me, no consent required."

I don't think that this is an attempt to blame the victim, or shift the responsibility on them.  The assailant is always, ALWAYS to blame.

I see this as an effort to help them identify what makes someone a more likely target.  I agree that there is never a choice of clothing that invites rape, but there are certainly choices that look like a bulls-eye in the eyes of a rapist, and people should at least be aware of this.

Also, I'll emphasize that these tips should only be one part of a larger effort against sexual assault.

There's a difference between blame and cause I think.

If I walked into a dangerous neighborhood wearing an expensive watch and sunglasses and carrying £500 in cash and I was mugged it wouldn't be my *fault* because I hadn't done anything wrong but It might've been partially caused by my behaviour.

more on the subject
https://github.com/meitar/pat-facebook#readme

Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Wed 02/10/2013 13:11:18If I walked into a dangerous neighborhood wearing an expensive watch and sunglasses and carrying £500 in cash and I was mugged it wouldn't be my *fault* because I hadn't done anything wrong but It might've been partially caused by my behaviour.

First: So not your fault, but actually your fault. You were asking for it. But I think there's a difference in the metaphor in that no mugger would rob a person and justify his actions to others by saying, "His wearing of an expensive watch communicated to me that he wanted me to rob him. His expensive watch implied consent despite the fact that I used force to get it."

Second: A statistically significant portion of rapes are perpetrated by someone the victim knows. So in this case, your metaphor works better if we are co-workers, and you wore your expensive watch around me, so I stole it and said you were asking for it by always wearing a nice watch around me knowing that I would covet it. My watch now.

Third: Neither of these defenses would fly in the courtroom, but the idea that the victim provoked the assailant into attacking by being too sexual is often asserted in the courtroom (http://char.txa.cornell.edu/lennon.htm), or even that women who have a past history of having sexual partners have somehow lost the right to turn down their attacker. And studies have shown that people believe this: if you were dressed too sexy, you were asking for it. Amnesty International did a survey in the UK (http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=16618) a few years back, and the blue bar here is the percentage of people that think the victim is partially responsible, and the red how many people think they are totally responsible for their own rape:

(http://i.imgur.com/okbVToa.png)

Sure, there are things you can do to be safer. But I think clothes have less to do with it (and actually sex has less to do with it too) than issues of power and entitlement, and I still stand by the statement that no article of clothing or lack thereof ever communicates "I am sexually available to you, regardless of whether I give consent."

Quote from: Eric on Wed 02/10/2013 19:24:05

Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Wed 02/10/2013 13:11:18If I walked into a dangerous neighborhood wearing an expensive watch and sunglasses and carrying £500 in cash and I was mugged it wouldn't be my *fault* because I hadn't done anything wrong but It might've been partially caused by my behaviour.

Second: A statistically significant portion of rapes are perpetrated by someone the victim knows. So in this case, your metaphor works better if we are co-workers, and you wore your expensive watch around me, so I stole it and said you were asking for it by always wearing a nice watch around me knowing that I would covet it. My watch now.

That's such a good counter argument I'll actually not comment any further - perfect point, Eric.

Quote from: Andail on Wed 02/10/2013 20:31:14

Quote from: Eric on Wed 02/10/2013 19:24:05

Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Wed 02/10/2013 13:11:18If I walked into a dangerous neighborhood wearing an expensive watch and sunglasses and carrying £500 in cash and I was mugged it wouldn't be my *fault* because I hadn't done anything wrong but It might've been partially caused by my behaviour.

Second: A statistically significant portion of rapes are perpetrated by someone the victim knows. So in this case, your metaphor works better if we are co-workers, and you wore your expensive watch around me, so I stole it and said you were asking for it by always wearing a nice watch around me knowing that I would covet it. My watch now.

That's such a good counter argument I'll actually not comment any further - perfect point, Eric.

How is that a counter argument, Andail? If you take out the (evocative) figurative speech, I guess that a more detached way to describe it would be by using the expressions "risk assessment" and "responsibility (of a criminal event happening, in this case)". The two concepts are orthogonal.

Quote from: Eric on Wed 02/10/2013 19:24:05Amnesty International did a survey in the UK (http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=16618) a few years back, and the blue bar here is the percentage of people that think the victim is partially responsible, and the red how many people think they are totally responsible for their own rape:

That's an interesting poll (and the results appalling). Judging by the "full report" (which unfortunately isn't a full report, just key findings), there is a statistical dependence between social groups D and E (semi and unskilled manual workers / state pensioners or widows (no other earner), casual or lowest grade workers) and "blaming the victim".
This of course implies no causation (re: rape prevention), just food for thought.

Quote from: Eric on Tue 01/10/2013 23:44:47

Quote from: Jared on Mon 30/09/2013 08:22:50
4) Carefully considering what your choice of attire communicates

The problem with this POV is that, no matter how much we'd like to shift responsibility to the victim, there's not a single article of clothing or lack thereof, not even full nudity, that communicates "Anybody who wants to fuck me gets to fuck me, no consent required."

I'm not saying it does and I'm not trying to shift responsibility. My point is that it's a factor because when women are clubbing and are looking to meet somebody they will often wear clothes communicating simple messages like "I want you to look at this great body of mine" and "I am interested in sex tonight". Guys who are confident, drunk, dismissive, id-centric or carrying resentments (and whatever other factors that makes somebody not be a law abiding citizen) will not read between the lines or make any effort to. They will see the woman as offering herself up and they want to take full advantage. They will ignore most verbal cues and focus on what they see - if they can be swayed it will most likely be by body language. So it's always safest to not dress that way unless you're capable of dealing with the worst kind of attention or unless you have friends to help you out.

I've seen assaults happen, too. I'm sure a lot of us have. Some idiot on a dance floor, right in front of me with the girl I was talking to - she was an 18 year old in a low cut top - he just grabbed her shirt and tried to pull it down. She was the younger sister of a girl at a hen's night, though, so she had back up and I told the guy to piss off, too. If he somehow got somewhere alone with her it's not hard to imagine what would have happened. I'll be the first to agree the single biggest factor in sexual assaults is guys being dickheads but there's no simple solution for that.

Quote from: Eric on Wed 02/10/2013 19:24:05
First: So not your fault, but actually your fault. You were asking for it. But I think there's a difference in the metaphor in that no mugger would rob a person and justify his actions to others by saying, "His wearing of an expensive watch communicated to me that he wanted me to rob him. His expensive watch implied consent despite the fact that I used force to get it."

Although the discussion was purely about trying to prevention factors. What happens in the courtroom is neither here nor there. Although if a case of theft makes it to a courtroom I understand a common defense is that the alleged victim actually gave the items willingly, which is a reasonable parallel.

QuoteThird: Neither of these defenses would fly in the courtroom, but the idea that the victim provoked the assailant into attacking by being too sexual is often asserted in the courtroom (http://char.txa.cornell.edu/lennon.htm), or even that women who have a past history of having sexual partners have somehow lost the right to turn down their attacker.

As I said earlier in the thread I actually think this has a lot less to do with sexism than is believed...

Quote from: MeThe key piece of evidence in most trials are testimonies of independent witnesses. In most rape cases, they don't exist due to the nature of the crime and where it takes place. This means that we are reduced to the testimony of the accuser and the testimony of the defendant. The contested point is generally not that sex took place (rendering DNA evidence and most forensics moot) but that consent was given. This means in the majority of cases defence lawyers will tear apart the accusers testimony and portray them as a liar in court.

The majority of rape cases are ugly 'he said, she said' affairs, with the defendant and accuser and sometimes character witnesses of dubious worth. Whenever a defense lawyer has carte blanche to throw his resources at character assassination of a sole witness, ugliness is going to ensue no matter what case you're dealing with. And rape cases will offer the perfect opportunity to prey on whatever prejudices juror's may have about women. It's like a perfect storm of ignorance.

QuoteAnd studies have shown that people believe this: if you were dressed too sexy, you were asking for it. Amnesty International did a survey in the UK (http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=16618) a few years back, and the blue bar here is the percentage of people that think the victim is partially responsible, and the red how many people think they are totally responsible for their own rape

It's probably depressing that I was not at all surprised by these figures. There are often rape scandals here in Australia and the victims are rarely given a good hearing in the media. I am not sure I can conceive of a scenario where the victim could have even partial responsibility in my mind.

QuoteSure, there are things you can do to be safer. But I think clothes have less to do with it (and actually sex has less to do with it too) than issues of power and entitlement, and I still stand by the statement that no article of clothing or lack thereof ever communicates "I am sexually available to you, regardless of whether I give consent."

I don't think many people will contest the point, and I was never making that argument. I just think that there are preventative steps that can be taken that will lessen the odds. Not being paranoid or letting your guard down or just wanting to live your life will never constitute responsibility for somebody else's crime, though.


Tl;dr - we agreed all along. I think :undecided:

Quote from: Jared on Thu 03/10/2013 07:40:22
Tl;dr - we agreed all along. I think :undecided:

Perhaps so. It was the "and yes" part of your statement, and the way you set it apart that made me read your words in a tone you likely didn't intend. I grew up in the Bible Belt of the U.S. where I imagine similar surveys would reveal the same, if not worse, opinions to those above, and so I'm used to hearing sermons against "loose" women. In your "and yes," I was reading, "perhaps it's time to take a little responsibility for yourselves, women," and not, "and, unfortunately, it might help if."

Part of the reason I took issue is what you say here:

Quote from: Jared on Thu 03/10/2013 07:40:22single biggest factor in sexual assaults is guys being dickheads but there's no simple solution for that.

There's not a simple solution for that. But I think in proposing simple...not solutions per se, but deterrents, like not showing any skin...it's easier to defer the larger cultural conversations that we need to have and the shifts that we need to take place to actually solve the problem. It's much more than guys being dickheads. It's men viewing women as objects that they should be able to possess and control without consequence. As I noted above, I think this has very little to do with the assailant seeking sexual pleasure.

Highlighting provocative clothing prolongs a number of problematic narratives. For instance, you say that wearing such clothing provokes "sexual attention," which in your descriptions seems to encompass stares, groping, and rape. It's easy to read into this that women who dress to attract any attention to themselves at all need to know that groping and rape are now on the table. How provocative does the clothing need to be before that 6% will start to justify assault?

I would also anticipate that many, if not most, cases of rape did not involve so-called provocative clothing at all. I can't find stats to either confirm or refute this, except references to an Ohio State study that said only 4% of assailants could remember what their victim was wearing. The rape victims I know were not in situations where they were being sexually enticing. They were in situations where their assailant was seeking to assert power over them.

These are complex issues though, and, as usual, as I'm debating on an internet forum, I feel it's not the best medium for it.

I wonder if the clothing argument doesn't always stem from misogyny and victim-blaming (though it certainly reinforces those.) I think for some people, it's a delusional way of reassuring themselves that there are simple ways to prevent terrible things from happening. Like the person who finds out someone has cancer, and shrugs and says "Well, they should've worn magnet bracelets." It's easier to accept that there are personal choices one can make to avoid becoming a victim, than to wrap your head around the idea that culture itself needs to change.

Quote from: Eric on Wed 02/10/2013 19:24:05

Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Wed 02/10/2013 13:11:18If I walked into a dangerous neighborhood wearing an expensive watch and sunglasses and carrying £500 in cash and I was mugged it wouldn't be my *fault* because I hadn't done anything wrong but It might've been partially caused by my behaviour.

First: So not your fault, but actually your fault. You were asking for it.

Bull. Shit.

Advice on risk avoidance is never apportionment of fault. It simply isn't.

Also, any stance to the contrary is tacitly implying that women can do nothing about rape which disempowers women and is misogynist at its core. Now who's fucking up the object/subject dichotomy?

QuoteSecond: A statistically significant portion of rapes are perpetrated by someone the victim knows.

This is an often cited and misleading statistic.
It's true that most rapes are committed by someone the woman knows but it's also true that 90% of rapists are recidivists.

This whole "teach men not to rape" type stuff is insulting, foolish and ineffective.
It's insulting because 98% of men *don't rape*.
it's ineffective because you can't "educate" the other 2% of sociopathic nutcases.
and it's foolish because it teaches women that their rapist might have just made a mistake and they didn't fully understand because they hadn't been educated on the issue. Women might be much more likely to report their rapist if they knew he has almost certainly done this before and will do it again.

Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Thu 03/10/2013 21:28:07it wouldn't be my *fault*...partially caused by my behaviour.

"The rape of women is partially caused by the way they've chosen to dress." Is that not what you meant to say? Because it's what you said. What percentage of cause do you attribute to the provocatively dressed woman in this situation, and what to the rapist?

EDIT: I note on the previous page your distinction between "blame" and "cause." I don't think there is such a distinction in the case of rape, so likely we'll not see eye-to-eye on this ever.

Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Thu 03/10/2013 21:28:07Also, any stance to the contrary is tacitly implying that women can do nothing about rape which disempowers women and is misogynist at its core. Now who's fucking up the object/subject dichotomy?

I don't think it's me. Jared prescribed four risk avoidance measures. I responded to one of them. Nowhere did I say that education of men will lead to fewer instances of rape. I think massive cultural changes might. Nowhere did I say women had no course of action to take in protecting themselves. I took issue with, again, one oft-prescribed measure because I felt there was more to the suggestion than the surface would suggest.

Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Thu 03/10/2013 21:28:07It's true that most rapes are committed by someone the woman knows but it's also true that 90% of rapists are recidivists.

I don't know exactly how that's misleading. I'm not exactly sure how this clarification affects the metaphor at hand or the situation in general. Do you know that I've stolen watches before and still choose to wear yours in front of me, so it's more your fault that I steal yours?

Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Thu 03/10/2013 21:28:07
This whole "teach men not to rape" type stuff is insulting, foolish and ineffective.
It's insulting because 98% of men *don't rape*.
it's ineffective because you can't "educate" the other 2% of sociopathic nutcases.
and it's foolish because it teaches women that their rapist might have just made a mistake and they didn't fully understand because they hadn't been educated on the issue. Women might be much more likely to report their rapist if they knew he has almost certainly done this before and will do it again.

It's not so much that we need to teach men not to rape as it is that we need to learn to identify the sociopathic behaviors of sexual assailants before they take action.

And now onto the topic of blame and cause.  If a rapist is present, and they are looking at potential targets, it is true that they might choose anyone regardless of their attire.  Rape occurs in countries like Egypt where many victims are covered considerably by western standards, so provocative dress itself is not going to cause someone to rape you.  However, if one potential target is dressed or is behaving considerably more provocatively, they might be more at risk than the others.  Their choice of outfit is not going to cause anyone to rape them, nor are they to blame if they are raped, but they may have been a less attractive target had they chosen to dress or behave more conservatively.  It's a sad and unfortunate truth.  I'm a supporter of a woman's choice to dress and act as she sees fit, but I also have the protective instinct to warn them of the potential consequences of their choices should a sociopathic sexual assailant be present.

Here's Thunderf00ts usual crap on the subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1T0GcHM0s4o
(which in part echoes what was said here, unfortunately).

Here are the links to a great deconstruction: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/10/02/bringing-back-bad-memories/

The final part is here: http://somegreybloke.blogspot.de/2013/10/wha-can-we-learn-from-thunderf00t-about.html

A quote from a female commenter

QuoteBut it's such a nice catch-22: If you take one more precaution than TF deems reasonable you're a paranoid bitch who thinks all men are rapists. If something happens to you, well, you obviously didn't take enough steps to protect yourself, stupid bitch.

And it should also be noted that the steps we take to minimise risk already greatly diminish our joy in life.

Bottom line: yes, we do need to teach men not to rape, because the majority of them are not Ted Bundys. We already do this anyway, but just not enough, it seems.

Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Thu 03/10/2013 21:28:07
Also, any stance to the contrary is tacitly implying that women can do nothing about rape which disempowers women and is misogynist at its core. Now who's fucking up the object/subject dichotomy?

The discussion isn't whether women can/should protect themselves - there are tons of ways for women to defend themselves against rapists - the issue is that those tips people like to bring up "don't dress challengingly", "don't be flirty" etc keep being used in courts as circumstantial evidence against the victim. Saying that we need to change focus here has nothing whatsoever to do with misogyny.

Quote

It's true that most rapes are committed by someone the woman knows but it's also true that 90% of rapists are recidivists.

This whole "teach men not to rape" type stuff is insulting, foolish and ineffective.
It's insulting because 98% of men *don't rape*.
it's ineffective because you can't "educate" the other 2% of sociopathic nutcases.
and it's foolish because it teaches women that their rapist might have just made a mistake and they didn't fully understand because they hadn't been educated on the issue. Women might be much more likely to report their rapist if they knew he has almost certainly done this before and will do it again.

I don't think that all rapists are necesseraliy sociopaths - I think many are born in the heat of the moment; sexual frustration, peer pressure - how lonely, angry men communicate with each other, and lots of other factors that originate in a patriarchal society. I think it's excellent that we turn the table around and direct rape prevention "tips" to the potential perpetrators instead of the victims.

Take a look at certain extremely male-chauvinist developing regions, where rape is a basically a means of warfaring - are all those men sociopaths, entirely beyond education and improvement? Or is it a matter of attitude towards women? Of objectification?

Quote from: Andail on Sat 05/10/2013 14:35:45
The discussion isn't whether women can/should protect themselves - there are tons of ways for women to defend themselves against rapists - the issue is that those tips people like to bring up "don't dress challengingly", "don't be flirty" etc keep being used in courts as circumstantial evidence against the victim. Saying that we need to change focus here has nothing whatsoever to do with misogyny.

I think that it is vitally important to remove these prevention tips from being used as a rape defense in the courtroom.  They are not meant to be used in that setting, and doing so effectively puts unwarranted blame on the victims.  The tips are useful, but should the victims choose to ignore the tips, there is not suddenly an excuse for rapists to conduct their abuse.

Quote from: Andail on Sat 05/10/2013 14:35:45
I don't think that all rapists are necesseraliy sociopaths - I think many are born in the heat of the moment; sexual frustration, peer pressure - how lonely, angry men communicate with each other, and lots of other factors that originate in a patriarchal society. I think it's excellent that we turn the table around and direct rape prevention "tips" to the potential perpetrators instead of the victims.

Take a look at certain extremely male-chauvinist developing regions, where rape is a basically a means of warfaring - are all those men sociopaths, entirely beyond education and improvement? Or is it a matter of attitude towards women? Of objectification?

I agree here, and I think this further highlights the need to identify the psychology and behavior of potential rapists in order to better fight against rape culture.

Quote from: Andail on Sat 05/10/2013 14:35:45
I don't think that all rapists are necessarily sociopaths - I think many are born in the heat of the moment; sexual frustration, peer pressure - how lonely, angry men communicate with each other, and lots of other factors that originate in a patriarchal society. I think it's excellent that we turn the table around and direct rape prevention "tips" to the potential perpetrators instead of the victims.

Calin said in this thread that 90% of rapists are recidivists. If that is true (Calin, care to provide sources?), I see little benefit in educating the "potential perpetrator" (i.e. the general public) apart from explaining them what's written in those criminal laws book. "Turning the table" is useful and to be encouraged for a bunch of other reasons, I just think it would be utterly ineffective in this case.
If not, what kind of "tips" should we give to a classroom full of "potential perpetrators" (again, if the numbers are correct, 49 Average Joes an  1 guy prone to commit a number of odious crimes?)?

Quote from: Khris on Sat 05/10/2013 14:07:38
Here are the links to a great deconstruction: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/10/02/bringing-back-bad-memories/

Quote from: PZMyersTypical blunderthud, then. So don't watch it. (...)
To think that we briefly had Dundert00t (...)

Argh, I hate it when in a discussion someone calls some other with supposedly-funny nicknames. :(

Somegreybloke's post was really insightful, with many good points.

I'll probably be echoing a lot of the other people in this thread when I say this, (since I'm entering the conversation late) but I do agree that wearing clothes that are "less provocative" isn't really a solution to prevent rape. Not only is it shifting the blame and responsibility to the wrong party, it really isn't addressing the root of the problem, which will still exist regardless of what the victim does on their end.

As dactylopus mentioned, there are places in the world where the idea of wearing less provocative clothes are taken to the extreme. In parts of the Middle East, women are expected to wear head scarves and burkas to avoid showing any parts of their body that could incite lust in a man. (Apparently a woman's hair is just too sexy for some men to handle???) And yet rape is still very present in the culture. I also agree with Andail when he says that he doesn't think rape is perpetrated solely by sociopaths, who completely lack empathy and are unable to form close bonds with anyone. In part, rape stems from subconsciously viewing another person as lower than you, and thus deciding their desires are less important than yours. For example, I wouldn't say that most racists are sociopaths for acting on prejudices and causing harm. While yes, it is harder to change society as a whole and how women are perceived in our culture, it's really the only solution that tackles the heart of the issue.

I feel like the whole safety-tip thread of discussion kind of veered off by focusing on the stupidest part: telling women not to wear "provocative" clothes.

The more valuable points, I think, were about how to identify and deal with potential high-risk situations. Things like being aware that getting too drunk to take care of yourself makes you extremely vulnerable to sexual assault, that you're safer in a group than by yourself, to be wary about following men into their rooms (or letting them into yours), etc. Yes, these are basic lessons that probably everyone knows (though certainly everyone doesn't always follow them), but that's because they're repeated so much. (If you go back a few decades, reading autobiographies for example, it's shocking to see how oblivious people could be to risks like this.) And they're probably worth repeating. I'm convinced that a general attitude of informed caution does make it possible for potential victims to avoid some (though by no means all) sexual assaults. Not to say that women should live in fear, but given that there are dangers in this world, pretending as if we can ignore them is irresponsible.

I'd also agree with Andail and waheela that it's a mistake to think all rapists are sociopaths whose actions are outside of anything we can affect. There's a middle ground between "all men* are rapists waiting to happen" and "rapists are inhuman monsters who have nothing in common with 98% of guys*" (or, as I've argued elsewhere, the idea that rapists are driven by entirely abnormal impulses that have nothing to do with the sexual behavior of regular people). That most crimes are carried out by habitual criminals and chronic recidivists is not something specific to rape, and doesn't imply that rapists are just born that way, any more than we think people who commit armed robbery were all born bad. We know for other crimes that although innate personality surely plays a part, social factors are extremely important. I see no reason to think the same is not true for rape. So norms, role models/upbringing, awareness, and (dis)incentives are likely to make a difference to whether someone who's at risk of becoming a sexual aggressor will actually carry it out. (There's been some talk in the news the last couple of days about research showing that reading good literature improves empathy skills, which I think suggests one prong of an approach.)

The problem, of course, is that criminal prevention and rehabilitation is difficult, hard to evaluate, doesn't involve sexy solutions, and is vulnerable to "tough on crime" political posturing.

Some thoughts at the end:

One of the best points I've heard when it comes to prevention and education on sexual assault is that this should really be a major part of sex ed: teaching kids not just that "rape is bad, mmmkay?" but sex-positive ways to work through all the vulnerabilities and insecurities and expectations and apprehensions and taboos to establish mutual, enthusiastic consent. To set clear boundaries and to respect them. To save face in the face of rejection (and how to let someone down easy). To identify danger signs, to trust your gut warnings, and to avoid being manipulated. To look out for others, and step in if something is not OK. Etc. Etc. Sure, corny and naive, and probably about as effective as those "don't drink and drive" videos. But hey! I'm pretty sure those campaigns do have some effect. Again, this is really tough to put into effect, particularly in the US where the default is an "abstinence only" curriculum.

Finally, the question of whether rape prevention focused on the aggressor would work is fundamentally an empirical one. If it does, we would expect very different rates of rape and sexual assault in different countries (and conversely, if it's pretty much the same worldwide, that would be strong evidence that it's an in-born behavior in some individuals that isn't particularly affected by the environment). Unfortunately, the statistics between nations are not really comparable because of inconsistent legal definitions and norms for reporting.

* Of course, women can also be rapists, but the proportions appear to be so skewed that it makes sense to talk about rapists in the masculine.

Quote from: Snarky on Sun 06/10/2013 00:26:03
Things like being aware that getting too drunk to take care of yourself makes you extremely vulnerable to sexual assault

Of course, no-one has ever had their moderate amount of drinks spiked...

Since you're generally a nice guy, SSH, I assume I must be misinterpreting the tone of that response. Otherwise, it sounds an awful lot like you're wilfully misreading me and sarcastically putting words in my mouth.

Quote from: SSH on Mon 07/10/2013 18:03:34

Quote from: Snarky on Sun 06/10/2013 00:26:03
Things like being aware that getting too drunk to take care of yourself makes you extremely vulnerable to sexual assault

Of course, no-one has ever had their moderate amount of drinks spiked...

That's a completely separate issue.  But, one way to handle this would be to not leave your drinks unattended.

Quote from: dactylopus on Mon 07/10/2013 19:40:53

Quote from: SSH on Mon 07/10/2013 18:03:34

Quote from: Snarky on Sun 06/10/2013 00:26:03
Things like being aware that getting too drunk to take care of yourself makes you extremely vulnerable to sexual assault

Of course, no-one has ever had their moderate amount of drinks spiked...

That's a completely separate issue.  But, one way to handle this would be to not leave your drinks unattended.

So women are supposed to take their drinks with them to the toilet? :shocked:

Snarky, I just think that none of the advice is particularly valuable, since all of them can be gamed or bypassed by the perp, often by gaining the trust of the victim so they think it isn't necessary.

I think the main point to get across to men is that "No means no". And if people want to play games where that rule doesn't apply, it needs to be clearly agreed beforehand. Unfortunately all kinds of movies propagate "no means yes" as a default.

Quote from: SSH on Mon 07/10/2013 23:22:49
I think the main point to get across to men is that "No means no". And if people want to play games where that rule doesn't apply, it needs to be clearly agreed beforehand. Unfortunately all kinds of movies propagate "no means yes" as a default.

Additionally, a drunken or otherwise inebriated yes means no, too.

Quote from: SSH on Mon 07/10/2013 23:22:49
Snarky, I just think that none of the advice is particularly valuable, since all of them can be gamed or bypassed by the perp, often by gaining the trust of the victim so they think it isn't necessary.

Just because some piece of advice will not prevent every rape doesn't mean it can't prevent some.

All security measures can be overcome by a sufficiently motivated attacker. That doesn't mean we should make it easy for them. Not all potential rapists are going to be "sufficiently motivated", and if nothing else, the more effort it takes the fewer rapes they'll be able to commit in a given period of time.

To hazard another analogy, it's as if I suggested that it would be risky to post your credit card details here on the forum, and you responded "Because no one has ever had their credit card details stolen while shopping at a perfectly respectable online store!"

Quote from: SSH on Mon 07/10/2013 23:22:49
So women are supposed to take their drinks with them to the toilet? :shocked:

Obviously this depends on how cautious you want to get, but if you don't want to run the risk, the simplest thing would seem to be to ask a trusted (girl?)friend to watch over your drink for you. If that's not an option, you could always go to the toilet between drinks.

Quote from: dactylopus on Mon 07/10/2013 23:26:30
Additionally, a drunken or otherwise inebriated yes means no, too.

Eh, if every drunken shag is rape, then we'd better arrest 90% of the population (and offer them victim's counseling, too).

We can make conscious choices even while intoxicated (sometimes bad ones, to be sure). The legal standard is therefore rather tighter, often something to the effect of "functionally unconscious" (which doesn't necessarily mean unresponsive).

Quote from: Snarky on Tue 08/10/2013 00:12:48

Quote from: dactylopus on Mon 07/10/2013 23:26:30
Additionally, a drunken or otherwise inebriated yes means no, too.

Eh, if every drunken shag is rape, then we'd better arrest 90% of the population (and offer them victim's counseling, too).

We can make conscious choices even while intoxicated (sometimes bad ones, to be sure). The legal standard is therefore rather tighter, often something to the effect of "functionally unconscious" (which doesn't necessarily mean unresponsive).

Not all of them are rape, that's for sure.  I'm not trying to imply that every sexual act committed with a slight buzz is a rape.

But, it often happens that a victim will give consent while intoxicated and later realize that their inebriation prevented them from making a sound judgement.  This isn't just a bad choice on their part.  This is a physical inability to properly consent.  I'm not sure how far your definition of "functionally unconscious" would go, maybe it covers this, but it sounds like someone who is awake enough to answer, but not conscious enough to understand.  Maybe that's where the law draws the line, but I would suggest that unless consent was given (or understood) prior to intoxication, it is probably better to err on the side of caution.  Even a fully conscious person can have their judgement sufficiently clouded by intoxicants.

Getting away from the intoxication debate, another thing to consider is that coerced consent is not really consent.  There are of course examples of coercion under threat or duress, but I'm talking about a more subtle variety.  A good example is the Family Guy's version of the James Bond character saying "50 no's and a yes means yes."  Obviously, this is a joke meant to parody that mentality, but some people out there might actually believe this to be true.  50 no's and a yes means coerced consent, or rape.

I think that these are the more complicated but important parts of the issue, because it can be difficult to understand where that line is drawn.  More education on these points would probably go a long way towards the prevention of sexual assault.

Quote from: dactylopus on Tue 08/10/2013 00:47:53
But, it often happens that a victim will give consent while intoxicated and later realize that their inebriation prevented them from making a sound judgement.  This isn't just a bad choice on their part.  This is a physical inability to properly consent.

I think this exemplifies the problem with modern feminism's approach to rape. Are we to assume that women are children who aren't responsible for their actions? It's insulting to both sexes and a totally skewed perspective of reality.

If I drive drunk can I say "Well I wouldn't have driven drunk if I were of sound mind."? No, of course not. Just because you are drunk does not mean you are absolved of your responsibilities to yourself and to others.
Also, what if the "rapist" is drunk? Can he consent? What if the man is slightly more drunk than the woman. Has he just been raped?

Of course, it goes without saying that if a woman is unconscious and/or so drunk they are actually physically unable to consent then that's different.

Let's not always relegate the woman to the passive role in sex. Let's assume perhaps that she is an equal participant.

Let's also assume that 98% of men will not fuck a girl who is half conscious, vomiting and possibly covered in her own urine.
Exactly how terrible are men supposed to be in this fiction?

Quote from: dactylopus on Tue 08/10/2013 00:47:53
Not all of them are rape, that's for sure.  I'm not trying to imply that every sexual act committed with a slight buzz is a rape.

But, it often happens that a victim will give consent while intoxicated and later realize that their inebriation prevented them from making a sound judgement.  This isn't just a bad choice on their part.  This is a physical inability to properly consent.  I'm not sure how far your definition of "functionally unconscious" would go, maybe it covers this, but it sounds like someone who is awake enough to answer, but not conscious enough to understand.  Maybe that's where the law draws the line, but I would suggest that unless consent was given (or understood) prior to intoxication, it is probably better to err on the side of caution.  Even a fully conscious person can have their judgement sufficiently clouded by intoxicants.

I don't find myself agreeing much with Calin in this debate, but on this point we're in line. Even when your judgment is impaired because you're intoxicated, you can still make decisions and be responsible for them. (If someone drugs you without your knowledge or consent in order to get you to do something you wouldn't otherwise do, I would say that that's a crime in itself, not to mention hella creepy, but not necessarily "rape" if you remained conscious and did consent. However, it would shift the burden of proof as to whether the intoxicated person was in fact conscious.)

I definitely agree that it's better to avoid having sex with someone you think is drunk enough that they might be doing something they'll regret, but as a matter of "when can a person not consent", I would say it's if they're so out of it that they don't know what's going on, if they're incapable of forming coherent thoughts, incapable of expressing what they wish, or incapable of acting on it.

Quote from: dactylopus on Tue 08/10/2013 00:47:53
Getting away from the intoxication debate, another thing to consider is that coerced consent is not really consent.  There are of course examples of coercion under threat or duress, but I'm talking about a more subtle variety.  A good example is the Family Guy's version of the James Bond character saying "50 no's and a yes means yes."  Obviously, this is a joke meant to parody that mentality, but some people out there might actually believe this to be true.  50 no's and a yes means coerced consent, or rape.

I hope that's obvious. If we're quoting sitcoms, I'd go with this classic bit (http://youtu.be/ar9spNzOFPk) from It's Always Sunny. (!Warning: potentially upsetting to some viewers)

If two people are really drunk, and they go home together, have sex, and in the morning, one of them regrets it, then no, they don't get to call it rape IMO.
But if one of them is sober enough to realize that the other person is too drunk to properly consent, they should've backed off, unless maybe they're convinced that the other person isn't going to regret it because there have been clear(!) signs all evening or something. (I'm only adding this so nobody will accuse of wanting to make it impossible to date or something).

I read an article by a woman who was raped multiple times by different men in different situations, and she put it like this: is the other person enthusiastic about having sex with you? If no, don't try to have sex with them. It's as simple as that, isn't it?

Calin:
Let's also assume that 98% of modern feminists are not screeching hyenas who want to chop off all penises. Exactly how terrible are feminists supposed to be in this fiction?

Quote from: Khris on Tue 08/10/2013 10:46:33
If two people are really drunk, and they go home together, have sex, and in the morning, one of them regrets it, then no, they don't get to call it rape IMO.
But if one of them is sober enough to realize that the other person is too drunk to properly consent, they should've backed off, unless maybe they're convinced that the other person isn't going to regret it because there have been clear(!) signs all evening or something. (I'm only adding this so nobody will accuse of wanting to make it impossible to date or something).

Wouldn't the perpetrator be better off by getting drunk rather than stying sober with these rules?

If somebody knows they'll try to rape others when they're drunk beyond being able to consent and deliberately causes that situation, then they're still guilty of rape of course.
But I was only talking about people who might end up being labeled as rapists unwillingly, and how to prevent that situation.

What you're saying only applies to a situation where there's already a rapist involved.

Quote from: Khris on Tue 08/10/2013 12:44:11
But I was only talking about people who might end up being labeled as rapists unwillingly, and how to prevent that situation.
What you're saying only applies to a situation where there's already a rapist involved.

Yeah. I find it strange that the fact that avg. Joe is intoxicated or not should change something regarding his responsibility in front of the law. If I get your example correctly:

• person A is drunk, A and B have sex, A regrets it -> rape
  
• person A and B are both drunk, they have sex, A regrets it -> no rape
  
  

I assume we agree that if A is so drunk that they can no longer consent, and average Joe takes advantage of that, it's clearly rape, right?

Now if Joe is really drunk himself, and happens to have sex with another really drunk person, and that person decides they were raped, Joe is in a pretty bad situation.
Since we also agree that getting really drunk isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card, they have at least some responsibility. The fact remains that they had sex with someone who didn't give full consent. They aren't necessarily a full rapist though, because the same thing happened to them, assuming that the sex wasn't one of them violating the other.
But they should've avoided either a) getting that drunk with potential sex partners around or b) having sex with someone really drunk.
So it's not necessarily "no rape", IMO.
I guess it comes to the question of how much of what happened was premeditated.

I mean, care to elaborate what your take is? What exactly are you objecting to?
And purely hypothetically, if my assessment were correct, and that also meant that rapists can avoid prosecution by getting really drunk, does that make my assessment false? I don't think so.

This isn't about responsibility, it's about ability to consent. So quit with the oversimplified "if A and B are drunk" equations. Examine the realities of culture instead of shrugging hypotheticals.
A huge part of drinking culture is the power dynamics. Much of it is designed around guys helping girls get drunker than they intended. "Girly drinks" are designed to be more alcoholic than they taste. Guys top off girls' drinks so they lose count of their intake. Nobody is thinking "Mwuhahah yesss I'm gonna rape her," while they're doing this, they just think it's normal party behavior. Which it is. And that's the problem.

Quote from: Khris on Tue 08/10/2013 17:22:58
I mean, care to elaborate what your take is? What exactly are you objecting to?
And purely hypothetically, if my assessment were correct, and that also meant that rapists can avoid prosecution by getting really drunk, does that make my assessment false? I don't think so.

Yeah, basically what I find that, following your assessments (apart from probably increasing Type I errors in criminal prosecutions) leads to paradoxical situations: being intoxicated as disculpatory for the perpetrator (in some cases) is one of them. The whole "not full rapist though, because the same thing happened to them" is, pardon me, laughable (half rape? quarter o' rape? geiger counter for rape? both people being incriminated for rape?).

Quote from: Trapezoid on Tue 08/10/2013 20:15:32
This isn't about responsibility, it's about ability to consent. So quit with the oversimplified "if A and B are drunk" equations. Examine the realities of culture instead of shrugging hypotheticals.

I derailed the thread, that's what happened! I want to stress I was talking about criminal law. As much as I hate the word "culture", I agree with what you said.

Well since you're presenting the idea, I say we call it the Bicilotti Scale.

In any case, verbal consent in a situtation where consent isn't meaningful is always going to be a gray area without introducing laws that pretty much ban drunken one night stands. If the 'perpetrator' is completely sober and intentionally going after incredibly drunk girls then that's predatory as all hell but good luck legislating against it effectively.

I can't really see people getting super-drunk to bypass any accusations either. Since at that stage of forethought I'd imagine they're far more on board with the more direct kinds of rape. Plus there's every chance they'll just pass out drunk instead (which I suppose would be preferable).